VIDEO: GOP DEBATE – ‘That’s a Bunch of Malarkey’

Historical debate. Vice Presidential Debate 2012: Joe Biden Laughs at Paul Ryan’s ‘Malarkey’ on Foreign Policy. Can you imagine V.P. Biden debating Trump?

Republican Paul Ryan says the attack in Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stephens shows the U.S. is projecting weakness abroad. Vice President Joe Biden responded that’s ‘a bunch of malarkey.’ (Oct. 11, 2012)


Warning: Missing argument 2 for ivan_embed_html() in /homepages/6/d590702398/htdocs/clickandbuilds/LABProLib/wp-content/themes/august/framework/helpers/post-formats.php on line 387

It only gets better! Take a look below.


Warning: Missing argument 2 for ivan_embed_html() in /homepages/6/d590702398/htdocs/clickandbuilds/LABProLib/wp-content/themes/august/framework/helpers/post-formats.php on line 387

WOMEN POWER: Women Saved the Iran Deal From Washington’s Bickering Do-Nothing Men

11953153_774162656026451_3204034653658272909_nWomen Saved the Iran Deal From Washington’s Bickering Do-Nothing Men
On Wednesday morning, Sen. Barbara Ann Mikulski (D-Md.) announced her support of the Iran nuclear deal, becoming the 34th Senate Democrat to do so. At this point, President Barack Obama has enough votes to sustain his veto of a promised resolution of disapproval from the Republicans. In other words, barring some unforeseen catastrophe, this deal is going through.
Throughout the months-long debate, women have largely led the way, both in the negotiations and in doing the work to help ensure the deal’s success in Washington (including calling out Republican bullshit).
Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman (once referred to as an “iron fist in a velvet glove”) worked as the lead U.S. negotiator with Tehran and is largely responsible for actually finalizing the terms of the deal.
In Washington, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been at the helm of the effort to ensure Democratic support for the deal, making a major push to whip undecided Democrats this summer, and sending out email blasts every time a Democrat publicly supports the deal. Pelosi also enlisted a team of at least 12 other Democrats to help make calls.
In an interview with The Hill, team member Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said she spoke with Pelosi almost every day about the effort, that they divided up their targets to maximize efficacy, and that she was “particularly calling women.”
Schakowsky also co-wrote a letter to Obama along with Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tx.) and Rep. David Price (D-N.C.). “We must not let Iran develop or possess a nuclear weapon, and I firmly believe that diplomacy is the best way to achieve that goal,” she said in a press release accompanying the letter. “I also believe that we must do whatever we can to ensure that the negotiators have the space they need to mold the announced framework into a long-term, verifiable and enforceable agreement.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has responded forcefully to numerous Republican attempts to undermine the deal. In a July hearing, Boxer defended Secretary of State John Kerry from Republican claims that he was “fleeced” and “bamboozled” in Iran negotiations.
“If you were bamboozled, the world has been bamboozled,” she said.
In March, she responded to Republicans’ open letter to the leaders of Iran with a statement:
This is a brazen attempt by Senate Republicans to sabotage negotiations aimed at preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. This bizarre, inappropriate letter is a desperate ploy to scuttle a comprehensive agreement and the chance for a peaceful resolution, which is in the best interests of the United States, Israel and the world.”
Her colleague Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) responded with comparable outrage:
I am appalled at the latest step of 47 Republicans to blow up a major effort by our country and the world powers to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear program.
This is a highly inappropriate and unprecedented incursion into the president’s prerogative to conduct foreign affairs and is not befitting this chamber. The letter only serves one purpose — to destroy an ongoing negotiation to reach a diplomatic agreement in its closing days.
Schakowsky also chimed in in dissent of the letter, and Sen. Mark Kirk’s comparison between the deal and Nazi appeasement, saying, “That letter was reckless and irresponsible and it even was rejected by the Republican Chairman on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And now Kirk has taken his extreme rhetoric one step further by comparing this peaceful negotiation with Nazi appeasement.”
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) recently came out in support of the deal, noting that “it is more dangerous to Israel, America and our allies to walk away in the face of unified worldwide support.” Even Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has stood strong in support of the deal against her pro-Israel senior colleague Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — not just one of the most prominent Democrats in the country, but also a probable future party leader — who refuses to endorse the deal.
Before the the women of Congress got to work, Schumer’s decision seemed to open the door for conservative and hawkish Democrats to oppose the deal the deal. Now, Mikulski’s added support ensures that the deal will survive Republican challenge.
“No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian regime,” she said in a statement. “I have concluded that this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb. For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this deal. However, Congress must also reaffirm our commitment to the safety and security of Israel.”
There are 104 female members of the 114th Congress, which is a fairly paltry fraction of the 535 voting members that make up the governing body. The women who have won seats, however, are governing by different rules than the men, often by necessity. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) once said that female politicking is “much less about ego and much more about problem-solving.”
In fact, studies have quantified this increased efficacy: Women in the minority party are about 33 percent more effective at passing bills according to a study published in the American Journal of Political Science.
Regardless, time and time again, women have had to fight to be the active forces in government — think of what could be accomplished when that fraction starts to approach one half.
Contact the author at joanna@jezebel.com.
From left: Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Rep Jane Shakowsky, and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman. Images via Getty.

SOURCE

Republican Colin Powell Deals a Death Blow to Hillary Clinton Email Scandal.

10270822_696153810494003_7914590115677716439_nRepublican Colin Powell Deals a Death Blow to Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. If Hillary Clinton broke the law, as some Republicans are claiming, then Colin Powell also broke the law.
Clinton’s private email system was based
on the system that Powell used.
On ABC’s This Week, former Sec. of State Colin Powell admitted that he used a private email account for public business. Powell’s explanation of why he used a private email account amounted to a death blow for Republicans who are trying to build a scandal out of Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Transcript via ABC’s This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But I do want to ask you one final question on this Hillary Clinton e-mail controversy. Which, of course, put you back in the news a bit this week, as well.
You were secretary of State during the early days of e-mails. You were one of the first secretaries, I believe, to set up a personal e-mail account. And you pushed to modernize the State Department’s system.
Based on your experience, what do you make of these revelations this week and what would you recommend that she do now?
POWELL: I — I can’t speak to a — Mrs. Clinton and what she should do now. That would be inappropriate.
What I did when I entered the State Department, I found an antiquated system that had to be modernized and modernized quickly.
So we put in place new systems, bought 44,000 computers and put a new Internet capable computer on every single desk in every embassy, every office in the State Department. And then I connected it with software.
But in order to change the culture, to change the brainware, as I call it, I started using it in order to get everybody to use it, so we could be a 21st century institution and not a 19th century.
But I retained none of those e-mails and we are working with the State Department to see if there’s anything else they want to discuss with me about those e-mails.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So they want…
POWELL: (INAUDIBLE) have a stack of them.
STEPHANOPOULOS: — they’ve asked you to turn them over, but you don’t have them, is that it?
POWELL: I don’t have any — I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files.
And, in fact, a lot of the e-mails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and the State.gov domain. But I don’t know if the servers the State Department captured those or not.
And most — they were all unclassified and most of them, I think, are pretty benign, so I’m not terribly concerned even if they were able to recover them.
Powell’s description of his own emails as pretty benign matches up with Rep. Adam Schiff’s description of the Hillary Clinton emails that the Benghazi committee has read. According to Sen. Chuck Schumer, Clinton’s private email system was based on the system that Powell used.
The technology available in most federal agencies is woefully outdated. It isn’t surprising that appointees would use technology that is available in the private sector because it is better. Powell’s emails from his personal account went into the State Department system because they were addressed to employees in State. The same is the case with the Clinton emails. Powell’s discussion of his own experience with his personal email account adds credibility to the claim that there is nothing to see here.
If Hillary Clinton broke the law, as some Republicans are claiming, then Colin Powell also broke the law.
The more that is revealed about the use of private email, the more it looks like Republicans are trying to make something out of nothing. It has been a bad day for the Republican Clinton email scandal, and it is only going to get worse for the Republican Party as they continue to go down what looks like a dead end.
SOURCE

Exposing the White Supremacy of the American Left

11870660_763473400428710_7258104416217431281_n
Interrupting Bernie: Exposing the White Supremacy of the American Left #BlackLivesMatter
You know, I’ve always liked Bernie Sanders. I appreciate that as a U.S. Senator, he has been willing to speak the truth about many important social issues, but he’s also a U.S. Senator, which means that he is only going to be as progressive as his electorate allows him to be.
That said, I’d generally been pretty disappointed with the lack of racial justice analysis in his economic inequality platform as a candidate for president. That is, until a few weeks ago when some phenomenal Black activists at the Netroots Nation Presidential Town Hall forced his hand.
For all of the “this is not the way” sentiment we’re hearing from White progressives, it was the interruption at Netroots (alongside other direct pressure) that led to Bernie’s explicit platform on racial justice.
Notably, Black Lives Matter activists haven’t been successful (though I am sure not for lack of trying) in interrupting Hillary Clinton in the same way (that secret service protection and massive campaign budget for private security sure is handy), but even she has had little choice but to pay attention to Black Lives Matter as a movement.
And there is a great deal of disagreement within Black communities (we as White folks would do well to remember that people and Black organizations aren’t monoliths) about whether the action was strategic and whether targeting Bernie was the right move. And that dialogue should continue to take place within Black liberation spaces, but White folks – that’s not our business.
Because here’s the thing – what’s powerful about these interruptions from Black women is less how it has changed the tone of the Democratic campaigns and more about what they have exposed in the White left.
I see these protests as less about the individual candidates themselves and more about how their White base refuses to center Black lives and Black issues. It’s notable that White Bernie supporters, who consider themselves the most progressive of us all, shouted down and booed Black women who dared to force Blackness into the center of White space.
Because let’s be honest, every Bernie rally is White space.
In watching the over-the-top angry response from White liberals about Bernie being interrupted in Seattle, I can’t help but think of the words of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on White moderates:
What was true in King’s time is true in ours: the greatest stumbling block to racial justice is not the KKK; it’s well-meaning White people who would rather maintain injustice than risk the decentering of our Whiteness and White comfort.
And when I watch and hear the reaction of a mostly White Seattle crowd to a Black woman naming that the event is taking place in the context of Indigenous genocide, the new Jim Crow, and the everyday violence that Black, Brown, and Indigenous people face in Seattle, I’m ashamed.
Two Black women called for a moment of silence for Mike Brown a year after he was gunned down, left bleeding in the street for 4.5 hours, and White “progressives” shouted, booed, and chanted the name of a White man throughout that moment.
How much more committed to a “negative peace” can we get than literally shouting down the memory of a Black youth whose murder helped to spark this movement?
And how much more “devoted to ‘order’” can we be than to lecture Black people about what direct actions are and are not “hurting your cause”? (Notably, this language I’ve seen from countless White folks shows that we do not see the cause of racial justice as OUR cause – it’s that cause over there that we will tolerate so long as it doesn’t disrupt our Bernie rally.)
And how much more of a “stumbling block” can our self-proclaimed “allyship” be to racial justice when it’s so feeble as to proclaim, “I am a strong ally of the Black Lives Matter movement, but I’m not sure how to be an ally when they are this disrespectful to the only candidate that has actually done anything for minorities” (actual quote from one of the 15 or so social media threads I’m following as I write this article)?
Notably, it wasn’t two Black women who kept Bernie from speaking in Seattle. It was a White man, a Bernie supporter, who organized the event who shut it down, said the event was over, and informed the crowd that Sanders would not be speaking because he couldn’t agree with the “methods of direct action” of the Black women in front of him.
We are so resistant to the decentering of Whiteness and the centering of Blackness that we cut off our own nose to spite our face.
White solidarity toward racial justice must look like more than pointing to the fact that Bernie Sanders was a supporter of Civil Rights in the 60s. White solidarity toward racial justice must look like more than a Facebook share of a Ta-Nehisi Coates article (don’t get me wrong, I LOVE Coates). White solidarity toward racial justice must even look like more than showing up to the occasional rally that is organized and led by people of Color (though this is a good start – please show up).
White solidarity begins with our willingness to decenter ourselves and to divest from Whiteness, our privileges and power, and to support the centering of progressive leadership of Color.
White solidarity continues when we work with our own people to dismantle the deep-seated White supremacy that would cause us to boo during a moment of silence for a Black boy murdered by a White police officer.
SOURCE

Hillary Clinton “Was Not Violating Policy” With Personal Email

11890980_769329076509809_4597479652123109028_nDear Republican FYI…Please clean up your own crap.

Another fake, GOP, FOX lying, dirty trick, mud slinging, fraudulant scandal falls apart. Yep and noted when this BS came out.
_____
State Dept. Spokesman Tells CNN: Hillary Clinton “Was Not Violating Policy” With Personal Email

John Kirby: “At The Time, When She Was Secretary Of State, There Was No Prohibition To Her Use Of A Private Email”

The Republican Hillary Clinton email scandal is falling apart as the State Department confirmed that there was no policy against Clinton using private email.

Video:

On CNN’s New Day, State Department spokesman John Kirby said, “We have said in the past, Chris that there was no policy prohibiting the use of a private email account here at the State Department, and that is still a fact. Now, obviously, we have policies in place now that highly discourage that, and you are supposed to use your government account so that there is a constant, permanent record of it, but at the time she was not violating policy….I can tell you that there was no prohibition for her use of this, and we’ve since changed the policy to discourage that greatly, and in fact, the policy is that you have to use your government account for business.”

Kirby added that he didn’t believe that the policy changed while she was Secretary of State, which means that Hillary Clinton was doing nothing wrong when she used private email.

In a recent interview, also on CNN, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) admitted that the number of emails that Republicans claim were classified information in Hillary Clinton’s email account was not accurate due to retroactive classification.

The great email scandal that Republicans hoped would destroy Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is heading down the same path as “IRS scandal,” the “Benghazi scandal,” and President Obama’s birth certificate.

The email scandal is being revealed as another in a long series of election-year stunts. Republicans are set to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on politically driven investigations into Clinton’s use of email, and their efforts are likely to result in nothing.

A CNN poll released last week revealed that voters don’t care about Hillary Clinton’s emails. Clinton still leads every Republican presidential candidate, and Republicans are now confronted with the reality that if Hillary Clinton did not violate any policies regarding the use of email, there is no scandal to investigate.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/24/clinton-email-scandal-falls-state-dept-policy-private-email.html

______

Hillary Clinton’s Emails: What You Need to Know
BY TAYLOR WOFFORD 8/13/15 AT 6:08 PM
Hillary_Clinton_Emails
Hillary Clinton listens to a question from the audience during a community forum in Keene, New Hampshire, on August 11. REUTERS/BRIAN SNYDER

FILED UNDER: U.S., Hillary Clinton, 2016 Presidential Campaign, Clintonemail.com, Hillary Clinton Email
How Did This Story Start?

In March 2013, a Romanian hacker named Marcel Lazăr Lehel, aka Guccifer, disclosed the existence of a private email address belonging to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The Smoking Gun, Gawker and others reported that Clinton had been receiving emails at the address from Sidney Blumenthal, a close ally, concerning the storming of the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, by Islamic militants in 2012.

A little less than two years later, on March 2, 2015, The New York Times reported that Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state “may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.”

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

On March 4, Clinton addressed the story on Twitter:

Also on March 4, Media Matters for America, a progressive watchdog group founded by Clinton ally David Brock, published two stories accusing the Times of “deceptive” reporting. Media Matters reported that the law requiring retention of private emails was not changed until after Clinton left the State Department.

On March 10, Clinton told reporters she set up the private email server because she did not want to carry two devices with her. She also said she had handed over 30,490 work-related emails to the State Department and deleted 31,830 emails she considered personal.

On March 28, Representative Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who was a member of the House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, said Clinton’s lawyer had told the committee the former secretary had deleted all emails from her personal server, which meant that those emails deemed “personal” by Clinton herself (and therefore not handed over to the State Department) were presumably gone for good.

In May, a U.S. District Court ordered the State Department to release Clinton’s emails to the public in batches. So far, the department has released three batches of emails, in May, June and July, which are available on its website.

Then, in July, the Times once again dropped a bombshell, in the form of a story headlined “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Clinton’s Use of Email.” In it, the Times reported that two “inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as Secretary of State.”

The story began to unravel almost immediately and was altered extensively by the Times, at first without notice to readers (the original version can be found here). Clinton allies and those not in her camp, including former Times and current Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald, panned the story.

Most recently, McClatchy DC reported that two “top-secret” emails have been uncovered among those on Clinton’s private server. Clinton announced she will hand over to the Department of Justice her private email server and copies of emails deleted from the server.

Why Does Any of This Matter?

There are laws that specify which forms of communication government officials can use as part of their official duties. These laws are designed to improve transparency. The question from the start has been whether Clinton violated any of these laws, in letter or in spirit.

As NPR reported in early April, the Federal Records Act, which became law in 1950, requires federal employees to keep copies of their communications. It was amended in 2014 by President Barack Obama to require federal employees to transfer personal emails to government servers within 20 days. But that change to the law was made after Clinton left the State Department, her attorneys have argued, and therefore did not apply to her when she was secretary.

Plus, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill argues, Clinton didn’t break any rules because “for government business,” she had used her State Department colleagues’ official government addresses. Copies of those emails would therefore be retained by the State Department, Merrill said, which satisfies the requirements of the Federal Records Act as it was written when Clinton was secretary:

“Like Secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials. For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained,” Merrill said in a statement.

However, some transparency advocates, like the Sunlight Foundation’s John Wonderlich, argue that while Clinton may not have violated the letter of the law, she violated it in spirit. Wonderlich told NPR that “the spirit of the law is—and our expectations for public service—are public servants use their official email accounts.”

Wonderlich also argues that it should not be Clinton’s attorney who determines which emails contain “government business” and which are purely personal, but State Department employees.

Had Clinton used a State Department address for email, her communications would presumably be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. They could then be requested by journalists or other members of the public. However, since Clinton used a private server, which is not subject to the FOIA, journalists won’t be able to request them.

Another important question is whether “classified” material ever passed through Clinton’s private email server. On August 11, the inspector general of the intelligence community reported to Congress that emails were found that contained “classified State Department information when originated” among those Clinton handed over to the State Department. However, Clinton aides have said that the emails were not labeled “classified” or “top secret” when they were on Clinton’s server (even though they should have been so labeled). In July, Clinton told reporters at a campaign event in Iowa, “I am confident I never sent or received anything that was classified at the time it was sent or received.”

If it is discovered that Clinton did in fact have classified material on her personal email server and knew about it, it could mean trouble for her—both in a legal sense and in her campaign for president. Former National Security Agency employee John Schindler writes in The Daily Beast:

People found to have willfully mishandled such highly classified information often face severe punishment. Termination of employment, hefty fines, even imprisonment can result. Yes, people really do go to jail for mishandling classified materials. Matthew Aid, a writer on intelligence matters, served more than a year in prison for mishandling TOP SECRET//SI information from the NSA, for example. The well-connected tend to avoid jail, however. Sandy Berger and John Deutsch—who both served in high-level positions under President Bill Clinton, did not go to prison for mishandling TOP SECRET intelligence (though Berger got probation and was fined $50,000).
Could This Hurt Hillary’s Chances of Becoming President?

Possibly. The story isn’t going away, especially if investigators at the Justice Department find more “classified” or “top secret” emails among Clinton’s private stash. The most recent poll shows most Democrats in New Hampshire (a key primary state) think Clinton will be their party’s nominee, even though they prefer Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

Clinton’s Republican opponents have used her email practices against her. Businessman Donald Trump, who currently leads in the GOP polls, said he thinks Clinton “committed a crime” by using a private email server. At a campaign event in Nevada, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush argued that Clinton’s use of a private email server outside the State Department’s firewalls put American state secrets within reach of hackers, comparing the former secretary of state to Edward Snowden, whom Bush called “a traitor to our country.”

Florida Senator Marco Rubio called Clinton’s use of a private email server “irresponsible.” Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker called Clinton’s email habits a “potentially criminal offense.” And former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee called it “beyond outrageously illegal.”

Meanwhile, Clinton still leads in most polls.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-private-server-top-secret-362822

LORETTA LYNCH MAKES HISTORY

11174810_714808528628531_3817312950598957245_nWashington (CNN)The highly politicized five-month battle to choose President Barack Obama’s next attorney general came to a close Thursday when the Senate finally voted to confirm Loretta Lynch. The 56-43 vote makes Lynch the first African-American female attorney general in U.S. history.

But the delay of her nomination neared record-breaking proportions. Republicans leading the Senate refused to bring her nomination up for a vote until Democrats cut a deal on abortion language in an unrelated bill. That legislation passed Wednesday, setting up Thursday’s vote and ending the latest partisan Washington standoff.

Ten Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, joined Democrats. Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz was the only senator not to vote.

Obama tapped Lynch to replace Attorney General Eric Holder in November and her nomination cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. Still, she waited longer than the seven most recent U.S. attorneys general combined for a vote on the Senate floor, after Majority Leader Mitch McConnell insisted on first finishing work on an unrelated bill.

Loretta Lynch’s father, Lorenzo A. Lynch, was in the Senate gallery watching when the historic vote took place confirming her daughter as the first African American female attorney general.

“The good guys won. That’s what has happened in this country all along,” Lorenzo Lynch told reporters. “Even during slavery. Levi Coffin was a founder of the Underground Railroad. Even during slavery. A white man fought against slavery. So all over this land good folks have stood in the right lane, in the right path.”

A two-time U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Lynch takes on the high-profile job at time when America faces a series of challenges, from dealing with strained relations and deep distrust in some cities between the police and the communities they serve, to criminal justice reform, to confronting the ongoing threat of terrorism.

Lynch has some experience with the latter: the Eastern District of New York has tried more terrorism cases since 9/11 than any other office. In announcing her nomination in November, Obama praised Lynch for successfully prosecuting the terrorists who plotted to bomb the Federal Reserve Bank and the New York City subway.

Lynch, 55, has earned a reputation as a highly qualified, but low-profile prosecutor who has a good relationship with law enforcement and a history of handling tough cases well.

She is a good listener and a skilled consensus builder, qualities that will help her succeed at Justice, said Tim Heaphy, a former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia who served under Lynch on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, a group that meets regularly to advise the Justice department on policy matters.

“In that [attorney general] job you are at the center of so many of the emerging, significant, pressing issues not only in this country but around the world. There’s probably no job in government as diverse and challenging as being attorney general of the United States,” Heaphy said. He added that building support for initiatives both within and outside the department is an important part of the job.

“She will be good at getting people to work well together. I think that’s a strength of hers. I saw that on the committee,” Heaphy said.

Lynch’s portfolio will include addressing voting rights, white-collar crime and policy reviews, as well as public corruption, an area in which she has vast experience.

In a statement, Obama said America will be better off with Lynch leading the Department of Jusice.

“Loretta’s confirmation ensures that we are better positioned to keep our communities safe, keep our nation secure, and ensure that every American experiences justice under the law,” Obama said in a statement shortly after the vote.

Lynch’s experience on civil rights case, like helping win the convictions of New York City police officers who sexually assaulted Haitian immigrant Abner Louima, will be important as her office tackles closely watched investigations in recent police conduct cases, including the still unexplained death of a 25-year-old Baltimore man while in police custody.

“She’s seen and understands the injustices that have taken place in the past and so therefore she’s uniquely also equipped to deal with what’s going on and do the kinds of investigations that will restore faith to Americans in their justice system,” said Rep. Greg Meeks, D-New York.

Born in Greensboro, North Carolina, Lynch grew up 60 miles to the east in Durham, North Carolina. Her father was a fourth-generation Baptist minister; her mother, an English teacher and school librarian. As a child, Lynch rode on her father’s shoulders to his church, which served a meeting place for students organizing anti-segregation boycotts in the early 1960s, she told the Judiciary panel at her January confirmation hearing. Lynch eventually graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

Speaking at her nomination announcement in November, Lynch highlighted the fact that the Justice Department is named for an ideal.

“This is actually appropriate, because our work is both aspirational, and grounded in gritty reality,” she said. “Today, I stand before you so thrilled, and, frankly, so humbled to have the opportunity to lead this group of wonderful people who work all day and well into the night to make that ideal a manifest reality.”

Though Lynch, the middle child of three, described her childhood self as “nerdy” in a July 2014 interview with The Wall Street Journal, she also has a sense of humor, according to her former colleague Heaphy.

At a conference meeting with all the nation’s U.S. attorneys a few years ago, Heaphy was put in charge of organizing a presentation showing the attorneys as they were 20 years before. Lynch shared a picture of herself with her college cheerleading squad.

“Loretta sent me a picture of her as a Harvard cheerleader in a pyramid,” he said. “She was comfortable sharing this with Eric Holder and other department leaders. She laughed at herself.”

“I don’t think she’s just tough, there’s a humanity, there’s a human touch that she has that will also serve her well,” he said. “Nobody is going to mistake that she’s in charge, but her humility and sense of humor will come through.”

SOURCE